Live blog: Alex Dowsett to ride Red Bull Timelaps, cyclists shown to be safer drivers than non-cyclists according to insurance firm, more tri bikes with disc brakes launch, Tour de France trophy stolen from the NEC Cycle Show + more

@Smoggysteve Replying to this comment because for some reason you can only go about 3 levels deep on comments now... Yes, sometimes carbon cracks or delaminates. Thats been happening for years at all price points and all types of carbon bikes. I haven't noticed that having any relationship with the weight of the frame or how high end it is though. Thats just an inherent risk in a process that has a heavy human component and perhaps not amazing QA in many places.

@mctrials23 Yes bikes are brittle and carbon is easily broken - mostly down to accidental or misuse etc. But there are bikes that are breaking through normal use. Suddenly they just crack or delaminate. The closer to the limits you push these materials the more you will encounter this happening. As a consumer product thats not acceptable.

"Undue hesitation" a very common cause of failing a driving test, and driving conservatively behind a cyclist where the examiner seems it possible to pass safely could cause it. The instructor is correct to point this out.

It was this specific example of clickbait wasn't a life changing thing. Not the crash. Cheers

It was this specific example of clickbait wasn't a life changing thing. Not the crash, which was horrible. Hopefully being a collarbone the surgery was straight forward and there won't be any lingering effects like with the horror crash he had in the Basque Country. Cheers

@Smoggysteve I agree that the weight limit is fine but i'm not convinced by the rest of your argument. Carbon is an inherently fragile material when it comes to direct impacts. Unless you made it comparable in weight to aluminium then that will always be the case. Even then I doubt you would really remove the issue. As to consumers? They are free to buy whatever they please. Steel, titanium, aluminium. Lightweight, robust. Whatever they want, they can buy. I could easily build a sub 6kg version of my current bike that would be perfectly robust for my needs. If I decided to go for super lightweight wheels and other parts though I would have to accept that there are tradeoffs in price and sometimes durability. Removing customer choice is rarely a good thing.

@Jakrayan If I have understood correctly they don't need to prosecute every case. If there is evidence of a close pass they can send an advisory letter as Gloucestershire do, which should be just a press of a button. If there is evidence of an offence (Gloucestershire say a close pass is not an offence unless someone is inconvenienced) then they can send a warning letter or a NIP. Again this shouldn't take too much time. Once the driver has been identified they have the choice of an education course, a fixed penalty notice or straight to court. This will usually depend on whether or not the driver has previous. The only time a case will go to court otherwise is if the driver contests the fixed penalty notice. So 900 a month and 3 officers and 30 days means roughly roughly 10 a day. A working day is roughly 8 hours so about 48 mins per report. They ask for a 4 minute segment and they have to read the statement. The offence will be at 2 mins into the video so that should take 5 mins tops. That leaves 40 mins for the paperwork. Of course NFA would take much less leaving more time for other reports.

@mctrials23 Not all bikes are, I can show you many pics of owners whos bikes have broken quite easily and thats before you start making them lighter. Maybe the UCI needs to change the rules of them being open to purchase by the public and they keep a weight limit that maybe lighter or they realise that if youre going to keep making bikes that the public can buy there has to be a limit to maintain their robustness. That could be seen as a duty of care in a way. Right now, I see no reason to drop pro bike weight limits . For what? they would potentially do more harm than good in the current rules. if they are tied to consumer availability

"West Midlands Police is exploring alternative methods of spotting illegal e-motorbike use" So, per my comment on the original story yesterday, they had no formal guidance/training/policy in place. This is such a waste of taxpayer money due to the cost of having police in a role they aren't adequately trained for and the cost of compensating for the destroyed legal bike. How many others have faced this and will also be able to claim the cost? The only thing missing here is the user suing the police for distress and loss of income. But given all these costs are bared by the taxpayer, there should be actual consequences for the police force staff that let themselves get in this situation in the first place.

@Smoggysteve "So why not just leave the pro level bikes for the pros and stop worrying about it?" Are you arguing for the pros riding lighter, custom bikes here? I'm a bit confused. I ride a Giant TCR SL. Its a very light bike and I am 85kg. Fully loaded that bike is taking 95kg ish I reckon on some of my rides. This is on the shitty UK roads and I am bunny hopping over potholes etc. I have zero fear that its going to snap on me. The current superbikes of the pro peleton are super robust. If you crash them, they will probably break. So will almost any carbon road bike. They don't like impacts.